This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 08:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is this vanity? Worthy of note? 34 hits on google. [1] GRider\talk 17:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DeleteJohntex 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Nonnotable criminal. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non notable criminal - only 33 Google hits. Megan1967 06:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Very very weak keep. It's unusual for someone in treasury to steal 10 million pounds, so there might be something to be said there. --JuntungWu 12:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, albeit weakly. Sheer number of Google hits is not always the most useful reference; his theft was reported by New York Times, The BBC, The Times of London and The Telegraph; international media coverage is, by definition, a suggestion of notability. Also, note that his name was sometimes reported as Wing Kit Chu, which turns up an additional 164 Google hits.
- That vote was from User:Jacobw. JuntungWu 17:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- D'oh--yes, it was from me. Sorry, forgot to sign it.--Jacobw 17:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- weak Keep. (vote change) I'm persuaded by the international (as opposed to merely local) media coverage. Johntex 21:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, although some information on how he was in a position to steal that money would be nice. --nixie 01:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not really much on Google. JamesBurns 10:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.